Monday, December 22, 2014

Still A Stand Up Guy

Stan Rosenberg, Dave Sullivan, John Olver July 4th Parade Amherst town center 2009

As someone greatly concerned with government transparency at all levels -- especially when it concerns corruption or conflict of interest -- I can honestly say the recent soap opera backstory concerning our favorite State Senator doesn't have me concerned in the least.

At least not yet.

I've known State Senator Stan Rosenberg for 25+ years and have always found him to be the most responsive hard working politician in the state.

When he came out on July 4th, 2009 I called him a stand up guy -- both here on the blog, and in person as he was marching in the July 4th Parade I helped promote.

But even ten years before that, Stan attended as a guest speaker a controversial rally I organized on the Amherst town common decrying the (1999) cancellation of 'West Side Story', to this day one of the all time greatest stains on the reputation of our little college town.

Both he and ACLU Western Massachusetts Director Bill Newman gave a spirited defense of the First Amendment while lamenting the cancellation of the play at Amherst Regional High School.  Stan even tried to find state funds to bring a traveling professional troupe to Amherst to perform the iconic play.

And no matter how controversial the July 4th Parade became over the ten years it stepped off in Amherst (only in Amherst could a July 4th Parade become a heated controversy) he could always be counted on to march.  

So if anyone understands the light of media attention that can shine with blinding speed and luminance, it would be a guy who has had to deal with it for most of his adult life -- one who doesn't duck away from controversial issues.

Thus far he has handled the problem created by his significant other with a textbook response:  admit there's a problem and clearly outline a simple solution.

Erecting a "firewall" between his personal relationship and the duties of a powerful politician about to get more powerful is exactly the right answer.  Sort of like newspapers erecting a solid brick wall between editorial and advertising (or at least they used to back in the day).

Western Massachusetts always seems to fly under the radar with folks at the Boston Statehouse.  Our region will become a much bigger blip with Stan Rosenberg as State Senate President. 

Rest assured Western Massachusetts: we're still in very good hands. 


Dr. Ed said...

I was and am troubled about his antics during the Chancellor Search -- how he came waltzing into a closed Executive Session and was told who the four finalists would be BEFORE there was a nomination/vote for them in public session.

I thought it was highly inappropriate if not an outright violation of the Ethics Laws -- he had an attitude of entitlement, being better than everyone else, and hence able to be the first to know something that everyone else also wanted to know.

An ethics issue with a partner -- yes, I can see that.

And when someone has a girlfriend (or wife) a THIRD of his age, there is a great deal of public condemnation. There is a lot said when she is only half your age...

OK, we treat gay relationships in an equal manner. OK then, how is this any different then?

And I say this independent of his sexual orientation -- I do question his judgment. The issue with the Chancellor Search, the issue with his, umm, husband -- how many of the past Speakers have gone to jail?

From what I have heard, Bulger should have too -- and Stan well may. It's judgement -- knowing not to do things even if you think you can get away with them...

Anonymous said...


He's not become Speaker you idiot. He's become the senate President. Different position.

Anonymous said...

Ha! Ed is the Roseanne Roseannadanna of Amherst.

Anonymous said...

This blog is becoming so predictable: you rant, I rave. You call me names, I call you nes. We all talk about having a "conversation" about this or that, but really we just want to scream at each other from cyberspace. Respect: one of those invisible threads in the Emperor's new suit of clothes.

Anonymous said...

65 divided by 27 = Ed is a dumbass AND can't do math.

Stevin said...

Fuck the Emperor AND his ugly ass clothes! This blog is about free speech (and flags)! So piss off if you want polite conversation.

Larry Kelley said...

But I do try to keep it civil.

Anonymous said...

11:11 -

So five years ago when the relationship was already established, Stan was 60 and the consort was 22.

60 / 22 = ...close enough, dumbass.

Dr. Ed said...

"He's not become Speaker you idiot. He's become the senate President. Different position."

Yes, the position that William Bulger had -- and did I not reference him?

Unless the State Senate is irrelevant, do you honestly believe that the corrupting influences will only go to the House?

Anonymous said...

"Ugly ass clothes." This from the intelligentsia of Amherst. Keep the four letter words coming. That's so enlightening. Says a lot about your ability to communicate. Lol.

Anonymous said...

the big question...who paid for at least 3 senators and spouces/friends to go to st. thomas?????

Anonymous said...

Well at least this conversation isn't about race issues again.

Bottom Line said...

Western Mass is a big blip for the folks in Boston... on the spreadsheet when it comes to supporting that region with state dollars.

Anonymous said...


You are making completely unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations against Senator Rosenberg. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dr. Ed said...

"You are making completely unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations against Senator Rosenberg. "

How so?

I was there, I saw him come into the room with my own eyes -- and my ears heard some of my colleagues on the search addressing hims as "Senator

I recognized the man because I'd seem /heard him address the UM Faculty Senate on prior occasions -- I knew him to be the State Senator that represents Amherst.

How the hell is this "unfounded and unsubstantiated"? I am an eyewitness, you don't get better than that...

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Exacto6 why?

I saw him exercise what was, at best, exceptionally poor judgment and I'm basing my opinion on something I actually saw him do.

And as to the age difference thing --

1: Ever use a slide rule? I did pretty much the same thing here -- I dropped the last digit and six is three times two.

2: I really don't care about the age issue -- I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. If it's a female spouse and she's that much younger that the famous/powerful man. she's usually called a "Trophy Wife" and he's called a lot worse.

If there is something inherently wrong with that much of an age differental in a relationship, then it should be equally wrong for it in a gay relationship.

3: I do NOT think there is anything inherently wrong with it -- people mature & develop at different rates and I know too many people who have lost (to death) their same-age spouse to buy into this "you're not being fair to her" stuff.

It's more important that you are at the same age developmentally and happy than being with someone of the same chronological age, with nothing in common, and miserable. Life's too short...

J say this when it is an older man and younger woman -- or younger man. I'm consistent -- my point was that those who disagree with me when it's a younger woman lack the courage of their convictions when it's a younger man.

I'm also consistent when it comes to NAMBLA -- staturory rape is statutory rape -- of any child. Yet I think we all have a pretty good idea of what would happen were there to be a NAMGLA founded and I find that troubling...

Anonymous said...


So far your accusation against Senator Rosenberg consists of "he walked into a room." This doesn't seem to be the sort of offense that sends one to prison. I think you need to understand the concept of proportionality.

Dr. Ed said...

The public employee used his position to obtain something unavailable to the general public, specifically walking into a room to which the general public did not have access after using his status as a public employee to walk past the police detail assigned to prevent entry into said room.

That is a violation of the state ethics law. Now as to being sent to prison for it -- I don't know -- but I am sorta plagiarizing actual findings of the Ethics Commission.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the comments page reads like a bunch of clucking hens.

Anonymous said...

Since he is the Chair of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Rules, I am sure he will be quaking in his boots.

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas fellow bloglodytes.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ed (at 9:16pm)

A police detail for a search committee meeting? Really?

Is it possible that police detail was there to keep you in?

Anonymous said...

There's a theory that you only get so many heartbeats in a life.

If you allow Ed's comments to infuriate you, you are probably shortening your life.

Ignore him.

Dr. Ed said...

A police detail for a search committee meeting? Really?

All Board of Trustee events hae a police detail.